A short while ago, Emily White, who is an intern at NPR, made
a
blog post in which she admitted that, despite having 11,000 songs on
her iTunes, she had paid for a grand total of 15 CDs in her 21 years of
existence. Is that statistic shocking? It certainly was to David
Lowery, singer with Camper Van Beethoven and Cracker, who on Monday
wrote a
detailed, open-letter-style response to White.
This open-letter has been blowing up on social networks and music
sites over the last few days, and I wanted to share it here as it’s
pertinent to my own situation and I’m keen to see what other DM readers
think. In the essay, Lowery asks White to think about how her actions
and attitude has effected the music industry as a whole. He uses facts
and figures to back up his assertions, and while not everyone is going
to agree with what he writes, it’s an excellent essay that is well worth
reading:
"I must disagree with the underlying premise of what you
have written. Fairly compensating musicians is not a problem that is up
to governments and large corporations to solve. It is not up to them to
make it “convenient” so you don’t behave unethically. (Besides–is it
really that inconvenient to download a song from iTunes into your
iPhone? Is it that hard to type in your password? I think millions would
disagree.)
Rather, fairness for musicians is a problem that requires each of us
to individually look at our own actions, values and choices and try to
anticipate the consequences of our choices. I would suggest to you that,
like so many other policies in our society, it is up to us individually
to put pressure on our governments and private corporations to act
ethically and fairly when it comes to artists rights. Not the other way
around. We cannot wait for these entities to act in the myriad little
transactions that make up an ethical life. I’d suggest to you that, as a
21-year old adult who wants to work in the music business, it is
especially important for you to come to grips with these very personal
ethical issues.
...
What the corporate backed Free Culture movement is asking us to do is
analogous to changing our morality and principles to allow the
equivalent of looting. Say there is a neighborhood in your local big
city. Let’s call it The ‘Net. In this neighborhood there are record
stores. Because of some antiquated laws, The ‘Net was never assigned a
police force. So in this neighborhood people simply loot all the
products from the shelves of the record store. People know it’s wrong,
but they do it because they know they will rarely be punished for doing
so. What the commercial Free Culture movement (see the “hybrid economy”)
is saying is that instead of putting a police force in this
neighborhood we should simply change our values and morality to accept
this behavior. We should change our morality and ethics to accept
looting because it is simply possible to get away with it. And nothing
says freedom like getting away with it, right?"
This article presents (in a roundabout way) two things I have been brewing over for a long time, in regards to file sharing.
The first one is this: why does the onus always seem to be on the
creator of art to accept that their product should be free, rather than
on the consumer to analyze the impact of their actions on the quality of
art?
It has happened here on DM in the past, especially in heated comments threads under
posts about Pirate Bay, where the question that tended to get asked the most was “why should an artist expect to get paid money for what they do?” (
Unfortunately,
since we switched over to the Disqus comment system last month, all our
old comment threads have been wiped, but readers are more than welcome
to keep the discourse going right here.)
Well, as an artist, the most immediate way to refute that question
would be to ask “why should you expect to receive art for free?” But to
take it further, here is another question that is never, ever asked, and
to me taps into the root of the whole problem: “if you are not willing
to pay for music, then why exactly do you collect music?”
Seriously, though. Why? Yes, music is lovely (I should know as I have
dedicated my life to making, playing and writing about it) but then so
is beer, and if I expected to get drunk every day without paying any
money for the privilege, I would quickly get the reputation of being an
unpopular scrounger. It’s basic economics, but it’s still a concept many
fail to grasp, or would rather substitute with the victim-blaming that
it’s the artist’s fault for expecting to get paid.
So, to put it more Marxist-friendly terms: “why does a person consume a form of art?”
I should make this clear at this point, I have been a very heavy
collector and consumer of music myself in the past, my forte being rare
disco and obscure deep house. So I get it! I get the buzz of obtaining
new music (not to mention that, being a DJ, I need to have access to new
music). But there came a point when I realized that NO, I couldn’t own
every single disco record ever made—thank you, Daniel Wang—but also,
why in the hell would I want to?!
As a musician I have found that I learn more about music by
concentrating on a smaller group of records/artists and listening to
them more intently than I do from consuming vast swathes of music and
not really getting around to listening to much of it. While a lot of
this has to do with my own route from consumer to creator, the thought
still niggles at the back of my head: have music consumers been driven
into such a blind state of consumption that they simply MUST have
everything, regardless of the cost to the medium itself?
And I ask this because sometimes it feels like the artists, the
people who make our society more tolerable, more beautiful and even more
inspirational, have been thrown to the wolves. One of the most common
“validations” for the file sharing of music among consumers and
listeners is that the labels have been exploiting us for years, so fuck
‘em. While this may be true, it’s very short-sighted and supremely
selfish, as it (deliberately?) disregards the damage caused to the
artists and, in turn, the musical landscape by the devaluation of the
actual product. And while their work has been deemed financially
worthless by the people who consume it (people who, presumably, want to
hear/read/see/feel more of what the artist has to offer), what opinion
do artists most often hear coming from the public in relation to art?
That the quality is getting worse and worse. Well, I’m afraid these two
things are not unconnected.
And here’s the second point that really irks me.
First and foremost, beyond being a writer and a blogger, I consider
myself a musician. I create music regularly, I work hard at it, and I
try and funnel all my non-music-creating activities back into helping me
make more music. One day I would dearly love to be able to live off the
money generated by my music. So, am I somehow wrong (or perhaps even
evil) because I want this?
Some would say that I am, that somehow I am not a “true” artist
because I have brought money into the equation and have aspirations to
become “professional.” (How exactly does being considered a professional
in your field invalidate what you do?!) To these folks I must stay
clean and unsullied by money at all times, lest I become some kind of
artistic “whore.” (And I LOVE getting called a “whore,” especially by
people who can’t stop themselves downloading music like a junkie can’t
say no to a fix.)
Well, newsflash: your romantic notion doesn’t pay my rent.
I need money to go on creating my art. I need money to live, and to
peruse that at which I am good at. I need money to invest in the
equipment I need to make music. I need money so I can spend time
learning how to use that equipment properly, not to mention spending
time on that actual art of music itself i.e. writing and arranging
melodies, rhythms and lyrics. I need money to finance distribution in
all its forms and the production of physical media. If I am to progress
and be the best artist I can possibly be, I need the time and money
afforded by being a professional in my field. I could make some bucks
out of t-shirts sales, I am told, but I am not in this to be a t-shirt
designer.
I am in this to be a musician.
And another point that I should clarify: I have been heavily involved
in “free culture.” From 2007 till this year I ran a label that dealt
primarily with free downloads. I have released music through other
labels that work on a similar basis. Simply put, I love giving people
some of my music for free. But not all of it. If I have a potential
Number One song in my brain, something I feel could give me an ongoing,
long-term income, and thus the freedom to peruse my art to a higher
level, why would should I give that away for free?
I will always go on making music, of course. I don’t think I will
ever stop playing with my Ableton and my Akai controller (until
something better comes along) and I know now that, even if I wanted to, I
couldn’t stop my brain writing strange little melodies all on its own.
But while I will go on making music, I will also keep feeling the
frustration of not being able to reach my full potential, of not
progressing and of missing opportunities of creating bigger, wilder,
greater art. Of using 40-piece choirs and 24 track analog desks, of
playing around with original Moogs and top of the range compressors. And
where exactly would the incentive for me to share my music with the
world be, if the world isn’t willing to share something in return?
As uncommercial or abrasive as my music sometimes is, I consider it
to be worthy of as big a fucking audience as possible. I don’t want it
to stay in a niche, preaching to the already converted, I want it to
travel and affect as many people as it can. And that’s another thing
that costs money. Simply “putting it out there” is NOT enough, artists
are still reliant on proven methods of PR and old/new media
communications to make people aware of their work.
Here’s a case in point. Last year I made an album, and after punting
it around to various labels who turned it down, I decided just to put it
out there for free. It’s called “AKA” and there are a lot of guests
featured, many of them MCs and vocalists from underground gay and drag
scenes, but they all have something unique, refreshing and different to
say. I want to give them the biggest platform I possibly can to get
their messages across. So go at it, get the album, (directly
here, or listen first
here)
it won’t cost you a thing, and if you don’t like it, you can have your
money back. But I will still have to invest money in this project to see
that it goes beyond small niche markets and has a chance of being
picked up in the mainstream. Because I believe it deserves to be in the
mainstream.
“AKA” is my
fourth
free download album release, and I hope it is my last. Not because I
dislike giving away my music for free, or because I want to start
sucking corporate cock. But because free culture is not sustainable, not
for me anyway. Or for artists who want to progress beyond the bedroom
and take their work out to a mass audience. An audience that is
constantly telling us it WANTS and NEEDS new and exciting music, maybe
the very kind of music we are creating. For artists who want to kick it
up a level and become *gasp* professional musicians. Not t-shirt
designers, not concert promoters, not
writers-who-make-music-on-the-side, but PROFESSIONAL MUSICIANS.
Asking for money for your output is NOT a crime. No-one is expecting to get rich off music, just to be
paid our dues.
I may be wrong, but I believe that we’ll never see another David
Bowie or another Prince or another Beatles again. Not because talents
such as there’s aren’t out there, but because the financial system that
allowed those talents to flourish, and that in turn made the consumers
used to obtaining a high level of art on a regular basis, are gone. That
is in no way an excuse for the almost-criminal activities of major
labels, and smaller labels for that matter, rather it’s just a statement
of fact. Without access to the high calibre
musicians/producers/engineers/designers/promoters/managers/etc that was
afforded these artists through the label network, none of them would
have been able to create their most seminal works of art, works that
defined eras, inspired movements, elevated art forms. And, lest we not
forget, raised the expectations of listeners to such a level that all
else pales.
The public WANTS another Beatles/Bowie/Prince, an iconic, genuinely
brilliant artist or band, for and of our age, yet to me the public
doesn’t seem willing to pay for that.
So where do we go from here?
Originally published in
Dangerous Minds by Niall O'Conghaile
